Hej Niels, Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> (2025-01-04): > The transition has moved to the endgame and this bug is now RC. This bug is > filed on the assumption that the remark in d/rules about a part of the code > needing root is true. The provided patch (MR) explicitly has > debian-installer opt-in to the previous status quo of `debian/rules binary` > being run under (fake)root, so it should have 0 risk of regressions from a > package build perspective.
We have a few weird things with other wrappers already, I guess it'd be best to see what happens when dpkg flips the switch (which I think remains to happen, but I only glanced at the thread on -release@), and act accordingly. > I can do an NMU for this package to resolve the RC bug. However, I am > not sure if will be helpful or just be in the way. My end goal is to > have the bug fixed in testing. But the debian-installer is not just > "any package" and I have no insight to all the happens around it > besides the upload, where an uncoordinated upload may be more harmful > than helpful. You can consider this handled: we'll upload a bunch of times before 13.0, and that'll get fixed in the end. We also have daily builds (outside the archive) where FTBFSes and other oddities are spotted without uploads anyway. > So, we are back to: Would it be helpful if I NMUed the debian-installer > package? If not, then I will leave it in your capable hands. Please leave it to me, but thanks for offering! (Depending on the versioning the package might get rejected anyway, or at least lead to some inconsistent state, see the version check in dak's scripts/debian/byhand-di — Here be dragons.) Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
